Quote:With the Ukraine civil war - courtesy of the constant prodding of the US State Department - inching ever closer to an all out military confrontation with Russia, and further escalation in terms of western sanctions on the Kremlin, as well as even more acute countermeasures and retaliation by Russia, increasingly more in Europe are asking themselves the question, if not in those exact words, "if the US said to fuck the EU, then why should the EU allign with the US?"

One person doing just that is prominent and controversial French writer and political journalist Eric Zemmour, who on Friday said that France and Germany, following the historical tradition, should work on forming an alliance with Russia.

"NATO is doing its utmost to present Russia as an enemy of the West and thereby justify its existence," Zemmour wrote in Le Figaro Magazine. "Fortunately, France and Germany in due time blocked Ukraine's accession to NATO, and that's a positive fact," the journalist said.

"Now when they finally coordinated their positions on establishing relations with Moscow, they should not stop halfway and should move towards forming a tripartite alliance with Russia," he said, recalling numerous efforts in the past by "kings, emperors and presidents" of the three countries to set up such an alliance.

As further cited by Tass, such a bloc "will be the only chance for Europe to get rid of the United States protectorate and become, in the words of General de Gaulle, a Free Europe'."

"An alliance with Russia is absolutely necessary to fight against Islamists in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Mali, Central African Republic, Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan, where these extremists are trying not only to erase all the traces of a Western and Christian presence, but to pave the way for carrying the war into the European territory," Zemmour added.

Sounds crazy? Maybe, but then again just 2 years ago anyone suggesting that a Grexit is inevitable, was branded as a conspiracy theory sociopath and prepped for burning at the Brussels stake. Now, it is all but a done deal.

David Guyatt Wrote:They would have to boot NATO out of Belgium too, and clean out all the remnants of Gladio and others who would've been deeply embedded in each European country as US "sleepers".

I guess it could be achieved if they went about it thoughtfully and carefully, --- but the US would immediately respond with a horrendous bombing campaign that would make Charlie Hedbo look like a child's tea party, I would guess.

But it now seems evident to me that the US fully intends to wage war on Russia in Europe, whether the Europeans agree or not.

Paul Rigby Wrote:Prominent French Journalist Calls For France-Germany-Russia Alliance

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/22/2015 16:41 -0500

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-22/prominent-french-journalist-calls-france-germany-russia-alliance

Quote:With the Ukraine civil war - courtesy of the constant prodding of the US State Department - inching ever closer to an all out military confrontation with Russia, and further escalation in terms of western sanctions on the Kremlin, as well as even more acute countermeasures and retaliation by Russia, increasingly more in Europe are asking themselves the question, if not in those exact words, "if the US said to fuck the EU, then why should the EU allign with the US?"

One person doing just that is prominent and controversial French writer and political journalist Eric Zemmour, who on Friday said that France and Germany, following the historical tradition, should work on forming an alliance with Russia.

"NATO is doing its utmost to present Russia as an enemy of the West and thereby justify its existence," Zemmour wrote in Le Figaro Magazine. "Fortunately, France and Germany in due time blocked Ukraine's accession to NATO, and that's a positive fact," the journalist said.

"Now when they finally coordinated their positions on establishing relations with Moscow, they should not stop halfway and should move towards forming a tripartite alliance with Russia," he said, recalling numerous efforts in the past by "kings, emperors and presidents" of the three countries to set up such an alliance.

As further cited by Tass, such a bloc "will be the only chance for Europe to get rid of the United States protectorate and become, in the words of General de Gaulle, a Free Europe'."

"An alliance with Russia is absolutely necessary to fight against Islamists in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Mali, Central African Republic, Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan, where these extremists are trying not only to erase all the traces of a Western and Christian presence, but to pave the way for carrying the war into the European territory," Zemmour added.

Sounds crazy? Maybe, but then again just 2 years ago anyone suggesting that a Grexit is inevitable, was branded as a conspiracy theory sociopath and prepped for burning at the Brussels stake. Now, it is all but a done deal.

Quote:The former presidential candidate welcomes the Minsk accords. He encourages François Hollande and Angela Merkel to close in with Vladimir Putin to build a Grand Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. Philippe de Villiers is the creator of the Puy du Fou [popular theme park] and the founder of the Movement for France. He was a candidate for President in 1995 and in 2007. He is also a writer. His latest book The Romance of Joan of Arc appeared November 2014.

Interviewed by Alexandre DeVecchio

Le Fig: What do you think of the Minsk accords negotiated by François Hollande and Angela Merkel with Vladimir Putin?

De Villiers: The Minsk accords are extremely important because they involve four new factors. First they have permitted the protagonists to get out of the logic of war. The diplomatic path of small steps is an augury of a possible peaceful future. Secondly, two major European states, France and Germany, have led the negotiation and are committed to the execution of the accord alongside Russia. It is plain that neither the EU nor America has the capacity or the will to make peace there. These agreements show that it is only when Europe talks to Europe that a real peace becomes visible it is the Europe of its states. Thirdly, the accord opens the way to the only solution that exists for the territorial unity of Ukraine: the accepting by Kiev of a specific status for the east of the country with the right to its maternal language, Russian. Finally, as for the difference with the accord of September, this one has a calendar for each phase.

Le Fig: One time does not make a habit so you welcome the initiative of François Hollande?

DeVilliers: Yes, because Europe must stop writing its future with the American pen. François Hollande has acted as a head of state without regard to the American assignments. He was able to resist the insistence of the United States on the entry of Ukraine into NATO. Further, one must encourage France to go beyond this first phase of emancipation. François Hollande should now deliver the Mistral to Russia and so respect the commercial contract signed by France and paid for by Russia at the level of a billion euros. He should also lift the sanctions which are today acts of war that are more unfavorable to the French economy than to the Russian economy and which do not affect the American economy at all. But the most important, rather than insist on building an artificial Maastricht Europe, will be to prepare tomorrow the only viable Europe that makes sense: to lay the groundwork for a grand strategic and cultural partnership with Russia -- Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals.

Le Fig: The accord has already been violated by the Ukrainian separatists. Can one trust Vladimir Putin?

DeVilliers: When you get back to the source of these occurrences, one notes the permanent falsehood of the EU and the phantasies carried by the western press. The cease-fire, on my knowledge, is being observed along the front line, except at Debaltsevo, a special problem that came up just before the Minsk accords. But even there, today the heavy weapons are being drawn back. The mechanisms of oversight are getting put into place and the heads of state are talking to each other. When the media report that the Russian trucks laden with humanitarian aid are laden with munitions, I have to ask: in this time of satellites that see everything, of the iphones that record for the record, what's stopping them giving us proof? Where are the photographs?

LeFig: The idea of the Puy du Fou is getting turned down in Russia is your unconditional support for Putin, interested?

DeVilliers: Just the opposite. Having let Russia in on the advance planning for this franco-russian project, I discovered two things. First, that Russia is profoundly European. All her culture, all her elites and all her people look toward Europe. Solzhenitsin told me once: "Don't make the mistake of turning your back on Russia. It's a matter of your future."

Further, I discovered that Putin is a genuine head of state. I also found out why in the West the elite one-worlders never cease criticizing him: America wants Europe to be the 51st star in the American flag. For that, they have to keep Europe sworn into NATO. Vladimir Putin is the perfect excuse, the ideal devil. Let us not forget the origins of the Ukrainian mess. First a coup d'etat fomented by NATO. Then the mistake of the Ukrainian government, the interdiction of the Russian language, finally, the US insistence on the entry of Ukraine into NATO. How can one imagine that the Russians could accept seeing NATO on their doorstep? Vladimir Putin has no wish for the dismemberment of Ukraine. He simply wishes recognition of the maternal Russian language in the russophone regions, a status for the regions, and finally the neutrality of Ukraine vis-a-vis NATO.

Le Fig: Russia seems to have recovered a certain national pride. Isn't there a risk of this turning into an excess of nationalism?

DeVilliers: The difference with France is as follows: in Russia there is a real restoration of moral, civic, patriotic, and spiritual values. The little ones of Russia are learning the pride in being Russian. One speaks to Russians of Russia, of its grandeur, its rich patrimony, its eurasiatic spectrum. And what is one saying the the children of France? That France is a disgrace, that the French are a bunch of racists, and that patriotism is a bore. There is more freedom of expression in Russia than among us. As Philippe Muray prophesied, we are stuck in a cage of -phobes: islamophobes, xenophobes, europhobes, homophobes. Nobody shifts! And we have a political class that's been drained, sanitized, stuck through the micro-wave that blesses the splitting off of work among the laicists who make a spiritual void, and the islamists who fill that void.

Le Fig: This doesn't prevent the Russians themselves from experiencing strong ethnic and cultural tensions, does it?

DeVilliers: The difference with the integration "a la française" is clear. There are in Russia 20 million musulmans out of 140 million inhabitants. Vladimir Putin applies the ancient prudent principle: "One lives in Rome like the Romans; one lives in Russia like the Russians." In France those who wish to believe that laicism and human rightsism are enough to resolve the problem are manipulators or cowards. There is but one way to integrate into our country, by francisation!

Le Fig: Now that the negotiations between the European Union and Greece are stalled, might Tsipras turn toward Russia?

DeVilliers: So far as the European oligarchy is concerned, Tsipras is in a state of mortal sin. He will soon be sacrificed on the Parthenon since he doesn't kneel before the euro and he admits to a penchant toward Russia. He finds some virtues in the devil. But the worshippers of Brussels and Frankfort have never understood that redemption by euro doesn't work for european economies. Greece will leave the euro: the negotiations will only postpone it. The European Union of today is an insane thaumaturgical attempt to annihilate the state, the frontiers, and to turn the peoples and the industrial activities over to the masters of internationalizing, who get immense benefits from it.

Le Fig: What will the Europe of tomorrow look like?

DeVilliers: The idea concocted today, by the Eurocrats and the one-world elites, of an accord of free exchange with will make Europe a market annexed to America, turns its back on the future and on good sense. What I fault in that Europe of theirs is being an American Europe a simple extension both economic and cultural of the United States. To predict the future, one could say "The European Union is dead! Long live Europe!" The true Europe, the grand, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, that will rediscover the cradle of her cultural and ancestral alliances. The Europe of the Queen Anne of Kiev, the Russian queen who married a French king. The Europe that rediscovers the old and good ideas that lead the world since the experience of men invented the triptich, sovereignty, frontiers, identities.

Paul Rigby Wrote:Prominent French Journalist Calls For France-Germany-Russia Alliance

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/22/2015 16:41 -0500

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-22/prominent-french-journalist-calls-france-germany-russia-alliance

Quote:With the Ukraine civil war - courtesy of the constant prodding of the US State Department - inching ever closer to an all out military confrontation with Russia, and further escalation in terms of western sanctions on the Kremlin, as well as even more acute countermeasures and retaliation by Russia, increasingly more in Europe are asking themselves the question, if not in those exact words, "if the US said to fuck the EU, then why should the EU allign with the US?"

One person doing just that is prominent and controversial French writer and political journalist Eric Zemmour, who on Friday said that France and Germany, following the historical tradition, should work on forming an alliance with Russia.

"NATO is doing its utmost to present Russia as an enemy of the West and thereby justify its existence," Zemmour wrote in Le Figaro Magazine. "Fortunately, France and Germany in due time blocked Ukraine's accession to NATO, and that's a positive fact," the journalist said.

"Now when they finally coordinated their positions on establishing relations with Moscow, they should not stop halfway and should move towards forming a tripartite alliance with Russia," he said, recalling numerous efforts in the past by "kings, emperors and presidents" of the three countries to set up such an alliance.

As further cited by Tass, such a bloc "will be the only chance for Europe to get rid of the United States protectorate and become, in the words of General de Gaulle, a Free Europe'."

"An alliance with Russia is absolutely necessary to fight against Islamists in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Mali, Central African Republic, Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan, where these extremists are trying not only to erase all the traces of a Western and Christian presence, but to pave the way for carrying the war into the European territory," Zemmour added.

Sounds crazy? Maybe, but then again just 2 years ago anyone suggesting that a Grexit is inevitable, was branded as a conspiracy theory sociopath and prepped for burning at the Brussels stake. Now, it is all but a done deal.

Quote:Ever since the Cold War ended more than two decades ago, America has never entertained any serious doubts about Britain's ability to fulfil its commitment as a vital military ally when tackling threats to the Western alliance.

Until now. For the dramatic cuts to Britain's defence budget implemented since the Coalition took power in 2010 have led to a number of senior US military officers and politicians openly questioning whether, when it comes to fighting the wars of the future, Britain has the capability to be an effective ally on the battlefield.

The Army, Royal Air Force and Royal Navy have all suffered cutbacks to the extent that they are no longer able to undertake the kind of missions that Britain has historically supported.

Now, General Raymond Odierno, the Chief of Staff of the US army, who has fought alongside British forces in several conflicts, including the recent campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, has become the latest senior officer to express his concerns in public, telling The Daily Telegraph when I met him in Washington last week that he is "very concerned" about the impact the cuts are having.

His comments, moreover, came after President Barack Obama had taken issue with David Cameron when he visited the White House in January. He warned the Prime Minister of the dangers of allowing British defence expenditure to fall below the 2 per cent of GDP threshold required by our Nato membership.

For there are growing fears that cuts will jeopardise a central tenet of the post-Second World War transatlantic alliance namely, that Britain can be counted upon to provide military hardware to US-led campaigns in defence of Western interests.

Whether it is dealing with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, or preventing Afghanistan from becoming a haven for Islamist terror groups, it has been a long-standing assumption of US military planning that Britain would deploy a combat force in excess of 10,000 men, as well as the fighter aircraft and naval vessels.

During the 1991 Gulf War, for example, the famed 7th Armoured Brigade, or Desert Rats, took the lead role in the Army's ground operations, which saw more than 50,000 British soldiers deployed to the region during the six-month campaign. The RAF, meanwhile, deployed several fighter squadrons, while Royal Navy warships were involved in a wide range of duties.

More than two decades after Saddam's forces were defeated in that war, the world is a dangerous and unpredictable place. As Gen Odierno remarked: "This is the most uncertain global environment I have seen in 40 years of service."

And yet, at a time when the security of Britain and the rest of the alliance faces a range of threats, none of the main political parties is showing any interest in reversing the cuts that have seriously diminished the UK's ability to tackle them.

As a result of the budget cuts following the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review, the Army has been cut by a fifth, the RAF now has just seven combat squadrons, compared with the 30-odd it had in the first Gulf War, and the Navy barely has enough warships to fulfil its international duties.

"We have a bilateral agreement between our two countries to work together. It is about having a partner that has very close values and the same goals as we do," explained Gen Ordorno at the New America Foundation's "Future of War" conference.

"What has changed, though, is the level of capability. In the past we would have a British Army division working alongside an American army division." The cuts mean that the US military is now working on the basis that in future Britain will contribute only half that amount, if not less.

Looking at current threats to global security, Gen Odierno warned that the alliance "had to be prepared for Ukraine", while America and its allies needed to be primed to back Iraqi government forces later this year when they launch their much-anticipated offensive to liberate Mosul, Iraq's second largest city which fell to Isil last year.

But Britain's spending isn't the only cause for concern. Gen Odierno is also worried about cuts by other European allies. "The US is willing to participate, and in some cases lead, but we need our multi-national partners to help," he said. "As we look to the threats around the world, we need to have multinational solutions. They are of concern to everyone, and we need everybody to help, assist and invest."

The big question is whether, with the general election approaching, the concerns raised by senior American figures will persuade any of the main political parties to make defence a priority in their election manifestos.

As far as Mr Cameron is concerned, a future Conservative government would seek to make further cuts to the defence budget, with concerns already expressed that the Army that it could be reduced by another 20,000 personnel, making it half the size of its French equivalent.

Indeed, Philip Hammond, the former Defence Secretary, told senior officers last summer, that the military would not be able to spend 2 per cent of GDP, even if the Government agreed to provide it. This asinine remark, which typifies the disdainful attitude of some senior Tories, overlooks the fact that the RAF is desperately short of combat squadrons, the Navy is still trying to work out how it will provide the expert manpower and equipment needed to operate its two new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers and the Army is struggling to cope with the drastic reductions to its ranks.

And yet, while the Coalition shows little concern for the damage inflicted on Britain's military capabilities, it remains committed to ring-fencing the foreign aid budget to 0.7 per cent of GDP, with the result that much-needed resources are being squandered overseas that could usefully be spent on strengthening the nation's defences.

For example, following the Coalition's decision to scrap the RAF's Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft, we no longer have the ability to track the activities of Russian nuclear attack submarines in the North Sea. A simple, cost-effective replacement would be to purchase the Boeing P8 Posiedon, with similar capabilities, which the RAF estimates would cost around £200 million a year a reasonable investment, you might think, given the state of tensions between London and Moscow.

By coincidence, £200 million is exactly the same amount of money Britain donates to India in foreign aid each year. As a result of its generosity, Britain cannot afford the P8; India, on the other hand, has a fleet of the aircraft to protect its own territorial waters.

It's no wonder there is genuine anxiety among several Tory backbench MPs, who cannot understand why the Prime Minister won't accept that a robust defence policy might actually be a vote-winner. Let's hope, for all our sakes, that their arguments prevail.

R.K. Locke Wrote:General Odious.